28 Days Later

28 Days Later and Dog Soldiers are both extremely enjoyable films. But you cant really compare them can you? 28 Days Later is a slow starter while Dog Soldiers is just all out violence from the start.

CutterIE

I agree, you can't go compearing 28 days later with dog soldiers, dog soldier was so tongue-in-cheek it was laughable, where as 28 days later was ment to be a hard hitting "what if" type movie, and it would have worked if the zombies weren't so laughable.

it's like compearing Angela's Ashes with Gangs Of Newyork, oh wait you can, they were both shxt

Got 28 Days Later today. I cant watch it till my exams are over though. Has it been cut as the box says its on for 108 minutes. Was it not 113 minutes in the cinema?

Goodshape

Originally posted by Darko
Has it been cut as the box says its on for 108 minutes. Was it not 113 minutes in the cinema?

Looks like it was. According to bbfc.co.uk, the cinema release was passed without cuts at 113, but the DVD/Video release was submitted (and passed) at 108 minutes. I can't think why they'd cut there own film.. ??


...good show all the same. Could have been better at times maybe; but the zombies were sh!t cool and there was plenty of tension and whathaveyou. Has that refreashing non-hollywood feel to it too. Which I like.

DapperGent

I rented it out a couple of nights ago, it was great fun so lashings of thumbs up all around.

Must say I expected it to be way scarier was more actiony than scary, which I prefer anyway.

From the sounds of things I must take a look at Dog Soldiers as well.

Ajos

OK, I've registered and I'm delurking to address this 108/113 mins issue. 28 Days Later was shot on video, running at 25 frames per second. In the cinema it was projected at 24 frames per second, slowing it down and increasing it's running time by 4%, from 108 mins to 113 mins. No cuts were made.

As far as I know. Probably.

KdjaCL

Originally posted by Ajos
OK, I've registered and I'm delurking to address this 108/113 mins issue. 28 Days Later was shot on video, running at 25 frames per second. In the cinema it was projected at 24 frames per second, slowing it down and increasing it's running time by 4%, from 108 mins to 113 mins. No cuts were made.

As far as I know. Probably.

hhehe im glad he posted that before i did and seemed like a nerd


kdjac

Ajos

Hey, who are you implying is a nerd?

Oh, right, me.

Fair enough.

Miguel_Sanchez

Originally posted by Ajos
OK, I've registered and I'm delurking to address this 108/113 mins issue. 28 Days Later was shot on video, running at 25 frames per second. In the cinema it was projected at 24 frames per second, slowing it down and increasing it's running time by 4%, from 108 mins to 113 mins. No cuts were made.

As far as I know. Probably.

I thought only some of the film was shot on video - I thought it was a big mix of 35mm film, video, 16mm and Super 8.

I know there's definitely some Super 8 in it (or what looks like it - when they're driving down the motorway in the car)

Anyway. There you go.

Ajos

No, just DV. Maybe some super8, I don't remember that clearly. 24 Hour Party People had a big mix of stock.

ObeyGiant

28 Days Later was shot entirely on DV. No Super8 at all.

The DVD is pretty good. It's a lot easier on the eyes than in the cinema. The extras that I've gone through are pretty good too. The "Making of" featurette is probably the low point of the thing - filled with shots of "some guy", with a caption of "some guy - professor of somethingorother" saying "Yeah, diseases are crazy!". I really liked the commentary over the photo gallery.. I usually ignore "photo gallery" extras, but with the commentary, it actually made it kind of interesting, giving some context and back-story to each of the photos. But the high point of the DVD has got to be the storyboarded alternative ending. The whole thing is narrated by Danny Boyle and Alex Garland, and they do it so well, that it's kind of like watching Jackanory again, but with horror.

johnnynolegs

I have to agree with ObeyGiant the storyboard ending is actually amazing and looks like it would be just as good as the real ending pity they couldn't get around the transfusion problem

Steve_o

Who here has seen 28 days later i think its class!!

Pugsley

There was a thread about this not long ago, pretty long thread at that, do a search for it.

Steve_o

Fair Nuff i check it out!!

po0k

going to watch it tonight.

theciscokid

okay , not amazing

K!LL!@N

Just gotten saw it tonight in my mates gaff.
Really enjoyed it!
Watched most of the special features.
Didn't get to watch the whole film with commentary as it's getting a bit late.
But part of the film was actually shot on Super8, the kind of dream sequence with Jim and his parents. They said so in the commentary.
Also, i didn't think the ending as over-exaggerated

Jim didn't actually kill all the soldier single-handedly. He killed one guy at the barricade, killed the other guy with the bayonet and killed the guy who had selina. The guy was taken by surprise, he didn't know what hit him. The second guy just ran onto the bayonet. When he got to the third guy he was completely enraged that's what gave him the strength to do what he did. It was also part of the story because it was meant to seem like he had the virus. As for the other soldiers, they killed themselves when they got the virus after Jim freed the captured infected soldier.

Anyway, yeah a great film. I'd highly recommend it.

Killian

Catsmokinpot

sweet film, zombies better than resident evil. really fast and freaky

Tusky

sweet film, zombies better than resident evil. really fast and freaky

thats koz they aint zombies ....

neohoki

Eh 28 days later was crap.....it was as scary as elmo goes to grouchland....which is a far superior movie in my opinion.

1. Just because something is bloody doesn't mean its good
2.The plot was stupid it had no coherency
3.The acting especially by that black woman was bad
4.Why would the people infected not kill each other
5.Why Couldnt the people infected not eat each other
6.Why couldnt they eat the food around in the shops sitting there open or an apple off a f***ing tree
7.I'm sick of making this list i think my cat is chewing on the computer wires

BKtje

lol neohoki.

Why can't cows eat meat? why cant cats eat carrots?
Something called enzymes i guess if you really want a technical answer.
Why didnt they eat eachother? Why dont most humans eat eachother?
Plot was fine i think tho it has been a while since i seen it.
Some of the acting was bad but wasnt unwatchable.

Reason i loved this film was a) i love zombie like movies b)it really made you think of what would happen if some disease wiped out a huge preportion of the population of say the UK or USA. There probably would be (and are in other countries atm) soldiers doing exactly what those soldiers did. Really made me think.

neohoki

There would be soldiers raping little girls.....
what are you a paedophile YOU THINK ABOUT THAT TYPE OF THING!???
And humans do eat each other they're called cannibals
And cows dont eat each other because they are herbivores
and my cat eats carrots when i mush them up and call him granpa...

Catsmokinpot

Originally posted by Tusky
thats koz they aint zombies ....

yeah well maybe they werent zombies but they were feckin brilliant

Rew

Originally posted by Catsmokinpot
yeah well maybe they werent zombies but they were feckin brilliant

Maybe we should get tusky to define a Zombie for us

It was a virus in Rez Evil as well the only diference is they were dead first in Rez Evil, I think we can safly refer to them as Zombies.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by neohoki
There would be soldiers raping little girls.....
what are you a paedophile YOU THINK ABOUT THAT TYPE OF THING!???
And humans do eat each other they're called cannibals
And cows dont eat each other because they are herbivores
and my cat eats carrots when i mush them up and call him granpa...

Don't be a muppet tbh. He was suggesting that if nearly the entire population was turned rabid and murderous by a disease and a bunch of soldiers were left, they might be screwed up enough to rape little girls. There are soldiers doing that in Africa (for example) as we speak and B-K-DzR is not a paedophile for realising that.


As for the movie I thought it was pretty good, overall I preferred Dog Soldiers (not trying to compare them, I just generally enjoyed Dog Soldiers more). The digital format was really effective, made it more... visceral I guess is the word.

Mac daddy

seen it last week i was alright nothing special i thaught i would be better because the way everybody going on about it

neohoki

Originally posted by Zaphod B
Don't be a muppet tbh. He was suggesting that if nearly the entire population was turned rabid and murderous by a disease and a bunch of soldiers were left, they might be screwed up enough to rape little girls. There are soldiers doing that in Africa (for example) as we speak and B-K-DzR is not a paedophile for realising that.


As for the movie I thought it was pretty good, overall I preferred Dog Soldiers (not trying to compare them, I just generally enjoyed Dog Soldiers more). The digital format was really effective, made it more... visceral I guess is the word.

It 's called sarcasm zaph....i was only messing it's just funny to imply that people are paedophiles (by the way you're a paedophile) its just i hate that movie so much most modern horror movies suck....i remember the shining it was great.....what else sister act it scared me so much,man i nearly s*** my pants...all those nuns...singing a whoopie goldberg in general....*bursts out crying* oh god...i can't even finish this post...

Crucifix

Did anyone else find the product placement annoying?
"Pepsi or Lilt?"
"Do you have any Tango?"
I know it's not that big a deal, but it doesn't help draw you into the film.